Athlete Engagement A Qualitative Investigation Of The Filipino Athlete

Silliman Journal
Margaret Helen Udarbe-Alvarez, Ph.D., Editor
Warlito S. Caturay Jr., M.A., Associate Editor
Ian Rosales Casocot, M.A., Production Editor
Nenith P. Calibo, Business Manager
Editorial Board
Evalyn E. Abalos, Ph.D.
Jesus G. Amiscaray, M.Engg.
Jane Annete L. Belarmino, M.B.A.
Brenda R. Boladola, M.S.
Renelito C. Caballo, M.A.
Jose Edwin C. Cubelo, Ph.D.
Roy Olsen D. de Leon, M.S.
Dennis T. Solon, Ph.D.
Lorna T. Yso, M.L.S.
Enrique G. Oracion, Ph.D.
Betsy Joy B. Tan, Ph.D.
ovErsEas Editorial Board
Allan B. I. Bernardo, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Macau
Taipa, Macau, SAR, China
Dennis Patrick McCann, Ph.D.
Research Director, Asian Institute for International Business Ethics—Hong Kong and Rothlin
International Management Consulting—Beijing
Ceres E. Pioquinto, Ph.D.
English Lecturer, HMZ Academy/Dialogica Zug, Baar, Swizerland
Laurie H. Raymundo, Ph.D.
Coral Ecologist, University of Guam Marine Laboratory, Mangilao, Guam, USA
Lester Edwin J. Ruiz, Ph.D.
Director, Accreditation and Institutional Evaluation,
Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada
The Commission on Accrediting, Pitsburgh, PA, USA
Dr. Margaret Helen Udarbe-Alvarez, Chair

volume 55 Number 2 ~ July to december 2014

Paolo A. Bolaños, Ph.D.
Chair, Department of Philosophy
University of Santo Tomas
Manila, Philippines
Jonathan Y. Cagas
Assistant Professor, Department of Sports Science, College of Human Kinetics
University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City
Ma. Crisanta N. Flores, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Filipino and Philippine Literature, College of Arts and Leters
University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City
Maria Luisa Guinto-Adviento, Ph.D.
Sport Psychologist
Marikina City, Philippines
Dely Po Go, DNP
Adjunct Faculty, College of Science and Health Department, Nursing Graduate Program
William Paterson University
New Jersey, USA
Dave E. Marcial, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Information Technology Department, College of Computer Studies
Silliman University
Dumaguete City, Philippines
Dennis T. Solon, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Divinity School
Silliman University
Dumaguete City, Philippines
Stella Marie M. Urbiztondo
Department of Physical Education, College of Arts and Sciences
University of Asia and the Paciic
Manila, Philippines
Jonie C. Yee
Faculty, Biology Department and Researcher,
Microbiology and Molecular Laboratory
University of San Carlos—Talamban
Cebu City, Philippines
Board oF rEviEWErs

Silliman Journal
volume 55 Number 2 2014

The Silliman Journal is published twice a year under the auspices of Silliman
university, Dumaguete City, Philippines. Entered as second class mail matter at
Dumaguete City Post Ofice on 1 September 1954.
Copyright © 2014 by the individual authors
and Silliman Journal
all rights reserved. no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy,
recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission
in writing from the authors or the publisher.
ISSN 0037-5284
opinions and facts contained in the articles published in this issue of Silliman
Journal are the sole responsibility of the individual authors and not of the Editors,
the Editorial Board, Silliman Journal, or Silliman university.
Annual subscription rates are at PhP600 for local subscribers, and $35 for overseas
subscribers. Subscription and orders for current and back issues should be
addressed to
The Business manager
Silliman Journal
Silliman university main library
6200 Dumaguete City, negros oriental
Philippines
Issues are also available in microilm format from
University Microilms International
300 n. Zeeb road, ann arbor
Michigan 48106 USA
other inquiries regarding editorial policies and contributions may be addressed
to the Silliman Journal Business manager or the Editor at the following email
address: sillimanjournal@su.edu.ph.
or go to the Silliman Journal website at www.su.edu.ph/sillimanjournal
Cover and book design by Ian Rosales Casocot
Line drawings by Onna Rhea Quizo
Cover painting, “Memories of Childhood Christmas” by Ceres Pioquinto, courtesy of
the artist.
Printing by SU Printing Press, Dumaguete City

Editorial Notes
Margaret Helen F. Udarbe
The Language Policies and Practices of
the Philippines and Thailand: Insights
and Lessons for Language Planning
F.P.A. Demeterio III and Leslie Anne L. Liwanag
Beyond Any Particularity: Hegel’s
Universalistic Rethinking of Protestant
Sacramentology
Mateusz Oseka
Evaluation of Simulation Design Learning
in Silliman University College of Nursing
Theresa A. Guino-o, Maria Theresa C. Belcina,
Magnolia Rose P. Etea, Ivan T. Pacatang,
Rochelle Ellen B. Reyes, and Sheila L. Tan
Getting Out-of-School Youth and Adults to
Finish High School through an ICT-Based
Learning System: A Theory of Planned
Behavior on ESkwela in Roces Avenue
Center, Quezon City, Philippines
Jennifer Marie Baja Lapis and
Serlie Barroga-Jamias
CoNtENts
13
19
60
76
94

Athlete Engagement: A Qualitative
Investigation of the Filipino Athlete
Michele Joan D. Valbuena, John Saunders,
Vanessa Rice, and Elizabeth Aumond
Interrater and Intrarater Reliability of
Movement Competency Screen
Jefrey Pagaduan and Matthew Kritz
NotEs
Causeway Communiqués: Contemporary
Singaporean-Malaysian Literature
Gwee Li Sui
Cebu as Inspiration to My Writings
Cecilia Manguerra Brainard
History as Liberator
Jan Antoni A. Credo
60 Years of Publishing From the
Campus by the Sea
rEviEWs
The Contrasts Between Black and White
as Form in Budjette Tan and Kajo
Baldisimo’s Trese
Jesulito M. Kuan
Beyond the Corset: On Tara FT Sering’s
Amazing Grace and Philippine Chick Lit
Veronica Alejado Vega
In Nikki Alfar’s New Book of Fantasy, the
War of the Sexes Rages On
Ian Rosales Casocot
116
147
159
172
177
184
195
208
228

Silliman Journal welcomes submission of scholarly papers,
research studies, brief reports in all ields from both Philippine
and foreign scholars, but papers must have some relevance to the
Philippines, Asia, or the Paciic. All submissions are refereed.
Silliman Journal is especially receptive to the work of new
authors.Articles should be products of research taken in its broadest
sense and should make an original contribution to their respective
ields. Authors are advised to keep in mind that Silliman Journal
has a general and international readership, and to structure their
papers accordingly.
Silliman Journal does not accept papers which are currently
under consideration by other journals or which have been
previously published elsewhere. The submission of an article
implies that, if accepted, the author agrees that the paper can be
published exclusively by the journal concerned.
Manuscripts of up to 10,000 words, including tables and
references, should conform to the conventions of format and style
exempliied in a typical issue of Silliman Journal. Documentation
of sources should be disciplined-based. Whenever possible,
citations should appear in the body of the paper, holding footnotes
to a minimum. Tables must be held to a maximum of ive. Pictures
or illustrations will be accepted only when absolutely necessary.
All articles must be accompanied by an abstract of 200 words and
keywords of not more than ten words, and must use gender-fair
language.
Silliman Journal likewise welcomes submissions of “Notes,”
which generally are briefer and more tentative than full-length
articles. Reports on work-in-progress, queries, updates, reports of
impressions rather than research, responses to the works of others,
PUBliCatioN GUidEliNEs

10
Silliman Journal July to December 2014 ~ Volume 55 No. 2
even reminiscences are appropriate here.
Silliman Journal also accepts for publication book reviews
and review articles.
Manuscripts should be submited electronically in one Microsoft
Word ile (including title page, igures, tables, etc. in the ile),
preferably in RTF (.rtf). Figures and photos must also be atached
to the email in .jpeg. Please send one copy of the manuscript as
an e-mail atachment, with a covering message addressed to the
Editor: sillimanjournal@su.edu.ph
The Editor will endeavor to acknowledge all submissions,
consider them promptly, and notify the authors as soon as these
have been refereed. Each author is entitled to one complimentary
copy of the journal.Additional copies are available by arrangement
with the Editor or Business Manager before the issue goes to press.
Other inquiries regarding editorial policies and contributions
may be addressed to the Business Manager at nenithpcalibo@yahoo.
com, or the Editor at sillimanjournal@su.edu.ph.
PUBliCatioN GUidEliNEs

Silliman Journal
July to December 2014 ~ Volume 55 No. 2
Editorial NotEs
WElCoME to thE second issue of Silliman Journal’s 60th
anniversary. This is the last biannual issue as we revert to
publishing quarterly in 2015. The journal has come a long way
since its founding in 1954. Its 50th anniversary was celebrated with
a special science issue, a special humanities issue, an index project,
and a volume ofAbstracts (1954-2004). In this issue’s Notes Section,
I write about SJ’s developments in its irst 60 years.
The irst article in this issue is a comparative analysis of the
language policies and practices of the Philippines and Thailand.
Demeterio and Liwanag of De La Salle University in Manila,
Philippines set the context of their analysis in countries that are both
multicultural and multilingual and who are “gearing for regional
“The key to success is not innovation;
it is simplicity and diligence
applied with ierce devotion to our
highest priorities.”
Jim Collins
Fast Company
(2001)

14
Editorial NotEs
integration/cooperation and globalization.” TheASEAN emphasis
is both crucial and imperative. In the next paper, Mathew Oseka
looks into Protestant Sacramentology (i.e., baptism and the Lord’s
Supper), saying that “the idea of interpreting the phenomenon
of religion in philosophical terms propounded by Hegel may
contribute to the public theology based not on the category of a
supermundane revelation but on human rational endeavour.”
The next two papers look into the teaching-learning process,
though certainly in very diferent ields. Theresa Guino-o and
colleagues conduct an evaluation of the learning beneits of using
a “high idelity human patient simulator” among Filipino nursing
students. Positive results support the continued use of simulation as
a learning strategy. Meanwhile, Lapis and Jamias of the University
of the Philippines-Los Baños evaluate an e-learning program for
out-of-school youth, termed “eSkwela” and ind positive results
from enrollees in the program as well as from teachers.
The last two full-length research papers are by sports
psychologists—Valbuena and colleagues study the Filipino athlete
and Pagaduan and Kriz investigate ratings made of the movement
competency screen. In particular, Valbuena et al. found that Filipino
athletes were very similar to New Zealand and Canadian athletes
in athlete engagement (i.e., in conidence, dedication, vigor, and
enthusiasm). Pagaduan and Kriz also studied athletes, stating that
“movement competency and subsequent production of muscular
power is a fundamental concern for sport and health professionals
when considering an athlete’s injury prevention and long-term
athlete development.” The study proves valuable prior to exercise
prescription.
NotEs sECtioN
Our first essay, “Causeway Communiqués: Contemporary
Singaporean-Malaysian Literature” is by the poet, graphic artist,
and literary critic Gwee Li Sui. It is an edited form of a lecture he
gave at #FAST: The Cooler Lumpur Festival held in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia on 21 June 2014. By way of conclusion, Gwee Li Sui says:
“We should be seeing our own failings and challenges in this terrain
encircled by the term ‘Singaporean-Malaysian.’ I envision a time
when we can approach it not as an academic whim or a diplomatic
gesture but as actual knowledge, with qualities and traits that can
be marked down critically and with excitement.”

15
Silliman Journal
MarGarEt UdarBE-alvarEz
“Cebu as Inspiration to My Writings” was also a talk, given at
the Cebu Literary Festival by the writer Cecilia Manguerra Brainard.
Next, in “History as Liberator,” Jan Credo begins by discussing the
“inexactness” of history and then proceeds to promote the teaching
of history that is not only relevant but also emancipatory, liberative,
and accurate. Speaking of history, the inal write-up for the Notes
Section chronicles the life of this publication, the Silliman Journal,
as it celebrates its 60th anniversary.
rEviEW sECtioN
There are three reviews in this issue. The irst one is Jesulito Kuan’s
critique of the comics Trese by Budjete Tan and Kajo Baldisimo.
Then Veronica Vega studies the representation of women in
the novels—referred to as “chick lit”—of Tara F. T. Sering, with
particular atention to her latest novel, Amazing Grace (2009). And
inally, Ian Rosales Casocot reviews NikkiAlfar’s second collection
of short stories, WonderLust (2014)—saying it is “a kind of sequel
that goes farther than its predecessor, because it grows signiicantly
darker. Structured similarly in geographical terms, WonderLust
ofers stories set either in ‘Familiar Ground’ or in ‘Farther Shores,’
mapping out two diferent sensibilities.”
* * *
I am grateful to the Silliman University administration for its
continuing support of the Silliman Journal and all its initiatives.
In particular, in the past year, Silliman University supported my
atendance at two gatherings at which journal editors discussed
issues and challenges in journal publishing in the Philippines: irst,
a round table discussion of journal editors in celebration of the 50th
anniversary of Asian Studies, the journal published by the Asian
Center, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, and
where the gathering was held in February this year, and second,
in October, the National Academy of Science and Technology held
the Philippine Science Editors Consultation in Manila.
At the NAST gathering, SJ was cited as one of only 15 Philippine
journals listed in Thomson Reuters; only one other journal among
the ifteen, The Philippine Scientist at the University of San Carlos,
is based in the Visayas. In this respect, the increased popularity of
the SJ has brought in contributions, not just from USC itself, but

16
from all over the Philippines and abroad. Incidentally, and perhaps
consequentially, SJ publications by Silliman faculty has decreased.
I hope this means they are publishing elsewhere, as long as they
are publishing. Indeed, one of the recommendations made from
the NAST consultation is to encourage and support the submission
of research papers to quality external journals.
Speaking to the journal editors, Ateneo de Manila University
chemistry professor Fabian Dayrit (NAST academician) also
recommended that:
• Higher Education Institutions should maintain research
reports as a means of documenting research;
• government support should be provided to strengthen
Philippine research journals; and
• local scholarly journals which have already established a
track record should be strengthened.
In particular, Dayrit suggests that targets for improvement should
include increasing frequency of publication, expansion of online
publication, improving peer review process, raising international
character, and increasing its impact factor.
In light of many educational reforms going on in the Philippines,
we need to ask about the SJ’s mission and vision at minimum in
the next ten years. From the very beginning the SJ has published
on topics and concerns relevant not only to the Philippines but
the larger Asian context. Our overseas editorial board, however,
is represented by experts beyond Asia and the Paciic and we
have anticipated ASEAN emphases by many decades. As we
acknowledge the expanding reach of publishing beyond the world
of a local printing press, it is expected that the look and breadth of
the SJ will change in many qualitative ways.
In writing about good-to-great corporate transformations,
Jim Collins (2001) says there are no miracle moments. “Instead,
a down-to-earth, pragmatic, commited-to-excellence process—a
framework—kept each company, its leaders, and its people on
track for the long haul.”
.
Editor
Editorial NotEs

Silliman Journal
thE laNGUaGE PoliCiEs aNd PraCtiCEs oF
thE PhiliPPiNEs aNd thailaNd:
iNsiGhts aNd lEssoNs For
laNGUaGE PlaNNiNG
F.P.A. Demeterio III
Leslie Anne L. Liwanag
Filipino Department
De la Salle University
Manila, Philippines
this paper comparatively studies the language policies and
practices of the Philippines and thailand in order to gather insights
and lessons for ongoing language planning of both countries, as
well as of the other countries of the asEaN region, and of any other
countries that are grappling with the issues and challenges of being
multicultural and multilingual or are gearing for regional integration/
cooperation and globalization. the aspects of language policies
and practices of the said two countries analyzed by this paper
are: [1] the proiles of their language policies and practices, [2]
their socio-historical and political contexts, [3] their underpinning
motivations, [4] their implementations and their structural/
organizational mechanisms, [5] their implications on nationalism
and multiculturalism, [6] their implications on the development
of human and intellectual capitals, and [7] their implications on
regional integration and globalization.
KEYWORDS: language policies and practices of the Philippines,
Thailand, Philippines, socio-historical and political contexts of language

20
thE laNGUaGE PoliCiEs oF thE PhiliPPiNEs aNd thailaNd
planning, motivations behind language planning, language planning and
the development of human and intellectual capitals, language planning and
nationalism, language planning and multiculturalism, language planning
and regional integration, and language planning and globalization
INTRODUCTION
this PaPEr looks into the strengths and gaps of the language
policies and practices of the Philippines and Thailand in order
to glean some insights and lessons that could be of value to
both countries, to the other ASEAN countries, and to any other
countries that are grappling with the issues and challenges of being
multicultural and multilingual, as well as those countries that are
gearing for regional integration/cooperation and globalization.
THE LANGUAGE POLICIES AND PRACTICES
OF THE PHILIPPINES
To have a grip on the complex history of language planning in
the Philippines, it is advantageous to start with the following
chronological map that visually represents the period from the
transition from the Spanish to the American colonial regimes up
to the present (adapted from Demeterio, 2012, p. 28):
Figure 1. Chronological Map of Philippine Language Planning

21
Silliman Journal
F.P.a. dEMEtErio iii & l.a.l. liWaNaG
A Proile of the Philippine Language Policies and Practices
National language. The present national language of the
Philippines is Filipino and Figure 1 shows how its almost 80 years
of history is characterized by renamings and discontinuities.
Tagalog-1 refers to the Tagalog language, which in 1937
was considered the basis of an intended national language.
Eventually, Tagalog-1 was named the National Language of
the Commonwealth of the Philippines in 1939. Tagalog-2 refers
to the same Tagalog language, which in 1940 was made into a
mandatory academic subject. Pilipino-1 refers to that stage when
the national language was renamed “Pilipino” in 1959 in order to
dissociate it from the Tagalog ethnic group and presumably ease
the resentment of the other Philippine ethnic groups, particularly
the Cebuanos, the Ilocanos and the Hiligaynons. Pilipino-2
refers to that stage when the same language was divested of its
national language status in 1973 while maintaining its supposedly
temporary oicial status. Filipino-1 refers to a grandiose project,
envisioned in 1973 but did not take of, concerning the building
of a new national language from the grammar and vocabularies
of the Philippine languages. Filipino-2 refers to that stage when
Pilipino was renamed “Filipino” in 1987 and invested again with
the status of national language. Thus, the Philippine national
language may be said to be around for almost 80 years if the
reckoning starts from Tagalog-1; but considering the disruption
brought about by Filipino-1, it would be more reasonable to start
the reckoning from Filipino-2 and say that it has been around only
about 30 years.
Oficial languages. The oicial languages of the Philippines are
English and Filipino. English has been the oicial language for
over a century now; Spanish only ceased to be an oicial language
in 1973; while Filipino (Tagalog-2 in Figure 1) only became an
oicial language in 1941. Thus, Filipino as a co-oicial language
has been around for only about 70 years. But, again, because of the
disruption brought about by the temporary status of Pilipino-2
that was supposed to be replaced by Filipino-1, it would be more
reasonable to start the reckoning from Filipino-2 and say that
Filipino has been a co-oicial language for only about 30 years.
In addition to English and Filipino, the 1987 Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines recognized the regional languages as

22
oicial auxiliary languages in their respective regions.
International language. With the transition from Spanish to
American colonial regimes, Spanish as an international language
also waned in the Philippines with the waxing of English. At
present, very few Filipinos understand and use Spanish. This
makes English the sole international language in the country.
Status of the regional languages. According to Ethnologue,
the Philippines has 181 living languages (Cf. “Philippines”).
Subtracting Filipino, Tagalog, Chinese Mandarin, Chinese Min
Nan, Chinese Yue, and Spanish from this total, the country,
therefore, has 175 regional languages. Although these languages
are heavily used in everyday non-formal communication, they
have minimal oicial standing. Since 1939, they have been
intermitently used as auxiliary languages for learning. The
1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines has a more
airmative stance on them with its recognition of their being
oicial auxiliary languages in their respective regions, its vision of
continuously enriching Filipino with elements coming from them,
and its mandate for the Congress to establish a national language
commission composed of regional representatives and tasked
with conducting developmental and conservational researches
on the Philippine languages. The Philippines’ most dramatic
support for the regional languages is the Order 74, Series 2009 of
the Department of Education, entitled “Institutionalizing Mother
Tongue-Based Multilingual Education,” that stipulated the use of
such languages in the early years of primary education.
Status of other foreign languages. Ethnologue includes four
foreign languages in its list of 181 living Philippine languages:
Chinese Mandarin, Chinese Min Nan, Chinese Yue, and Spanish.
Amongthesefour,however,onlySpanishismentionedinthe1935,
1973 and 1987 constitutions. Speciically, the 1935 Constitution
of the Commonwealth of the Philippines retained Spanish as a
co-oicial language, while the 1973 Constitution of the Republic
of the Philippines speciied it together with Arabic as one of the
languages to which the constitution shall be translated, and the
1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines provided that
Spanish, together with Arabic, shall be promoted on voluntary
and optional bases. Chinese Mandarin, although not mentioned

23
Silliman Journal
in any of the Philippine constitutions, enjoys the status of being
taught and used in Chinese primary and secondary schools.
Languages in the public sphere. With the presence of two
oicial languages, 175 oicial auxiliary languages, and a handful
of other foreign languages, determining the dominant language
in the Philippine public sphere is a litle complicated thing to do.
In this paper, therefore, the public sphere was irst broken into
the following domains: [1] national government, [2] courts, [3]
military, [4] religion, [5] education, [6] entertainment, [7] press/
literature, [8] local government, [9] businesses and oices, [10]
factories, and [11] marketplaces and home-based industries
(Adapted from Schmidt-Rohr as cited by Haberland, 2005, pp.
229-230). Then, for each domain it was discerned if Filipino,
English, the regional languages, and the other foreign languages
have primary, secondary, tertiary or quaternary dominance.
Such discernment was based on the authors’ familiarity with
the linguistic landscape of their home country, as well as on the
information culled from the literature on Philippine languages. To
be able to come up with averages, numerical values were assigned:
1 for primary, 2 for secondary, 3 for tertiary, and 4 for quaternary
dominance, with 5 for non-use. English has primary, the regional
languages have secondary, and Filipino has tertiary dominance in
the Philippine public sphere and that the other foreign languages
are relatively not signiicantly used (Table 1).
Languageprograms.Withthepresenceoftwocoloniallanguages,
discontinuities in the histories of national and oicial languages,
and further discontinuities in language planning, a series of
discontinuous language programs were put in place mainly in
the domain of education. Hence in Figure 1, monolingualism-a
refers to the Spanish monolingual education; monolingualism-b,
to English monolingual education; bilingualism-a, to a program
that started in 1939 that established English as the primary
medium of instruction and the regional languages as the auxiliary
medium of instruction; bilingualism-b, to a short-lived program
in 1969 that mandated the use of Filipino as the primary medium
of instruction and the regional languages as the de facto auxiliary
medium of instruction; multilingualism-a, to another short-lived
program in 1973 that directed the use of the regional languages as
the medium of instruction for the early years of primary education

24
before transitioning to Filipino and English; bilingualism-c, to
the more lasting and known version of bilingualism that started
in 1974 and the speciied use of only Filipino and English as
the medium of instruction for primary, secondary, and tertiary
education; multilingualism-b, to a modiication of bilingualism-c
during the Presidency of Corazon Aquino that recognized again
the regional languages as auxiliary medium of instruction; and
table 1. Preferred Languages in the Philippine Public Sphere
Domain Filipino English Regional Other Foreign
Languages Languages
National
Government Secondary (2) Primary (1) Not Used (5) Not Used (5)
Courts Tertiary (3) Primary (1) Secondary (2) Not Used (5)
Military Secondary (2) Primary (1) Tertiary (3) Not Used (5)
Religion Tertiary (3) Secondary (2) Primary (1) Quaternary1
(4)
Education Secondary (2) Primary (1) Tertiary (3) Quaternary2
(4)
Entertainment Secondary (2) Primary (1) Tertiary (3) Not Used (5)
Press/Literature Secondary (2) Primary (1) Tertiary (3) Not Used (5)
Local
Government Tertiary (3) Primary (1) Secondary (2) Not Used (5)
Businesses
and Oices Tertiary (3) Primary (1) Secondary (2) Quaternary3
(4)
Factories Tertiary (3) Secondary (2) Primary (1) Not Used (5)
Marketplaces
/Home-Based
Industries Not Used (5) Secondary (2) Primary (1) Not Used (5)
Average4
Tertiary Primary Secondary Not Used
(2.73) (1.27) (2.36) (4.73)
1
Arabic is used by Filipino Muslims as a religious language.
2
Mandarin and Arabic are taught in some schools.
3
Chinese languages are used by Filipino Chinese in business transactions.
4
1.00 to 1.80=Primary; 1.81 to 2.60=Secondary; 2.61 to 3.40=Tertiary; 3.41 to 4.20=
Quaternary; 4.21 to 5.00=Not Used.

25
Silliman Journal
inally, multilingualism-c, to an innovation in 2009 that is based
on the principles of mother language education that begins with
the regional languages and systematically transitions into the use
of Filipino and English. As already mentioned, this program was
the Philippines’ most dramatic support for the regional languages.
Socio-Historical and Political Contexts
English as an oicial language antedated Filipino as national and
co-oicial language by about 40 to 90 years (Figure 1), depending
on whether the reckoning starts with Tagalog-1, Tagalog-2 or
Filipino-2. This means that English had already been well-
entrenched in the Philippines before Filipino became a national
and co-oicial language. Furthermore, Philippine language
planninghappenedwhenthecountrywasstillunderthedominion
of the United States of America, and therefore was not totally
free to determine its own afairs. When America inally gave the
country its political independence after the Second World War,
the Philippines was too preoccupied with post-war reconstruction
to allocate enough atention and resources to language planning.
The archipelagic nature and mountainous terrain of the
country that fostered an astonishing diversity of over 150
languages presented another problematic context. The 1935
Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Philippines atempted
to grapple with this challenge by suggesting the creation of a
national language that is “based on one of the existing native
languages.” Thus, naming Tagalog (Tagalog-1 in Figure 1) in 1937
as the bases of the Philippine national language appeared to be
aligned with the spirit of this Constitution, but declaring Tagalog
(Tagalog-2 in Figure 1) as the Philippine national language is a
litle incongruent to such spirit. Although Tagalog is the language
of a sizeable ethnic group of Filipinos, this group happened to
occupy the capital of the country and the surrounding provinces,
making the declaration of the same language appear like a
hegemonic imposition in the eyes of the other ethnic groups.
Before the Spaniards came, Malay was the trading lingua franca of
the archipelago. Then the Spaniards brought with them Spanish to
become the lingua franca of the limited number of elite Filipinos,
and made it a point to prevent the emergence of an indigenous
lingua franca that could potentially galvanize the various ethnic
groups into a threatening mass. When the Americans came, they

26
replaced Spanish with English. Tagalog, therefore, never had the
chance of being an archipelagic lingua franca prior to its selection
as national language.
The divisive nature of the problem of the national language
in a democratic seting posed as still another problematic context.
Regional politicians can champion the cause of the regional
languages and reopen old debates, while national politicians are
hesitant to take decisive steps for the certainty of some political
backlash coming from the disgruntled ethnic groups (Cf. Rappa
& Wee, 2006, p. 61). It is to the political advantage, therefore, of
national politicians not to meddle with language planning.
The slow growing economy of the country and its fast
growing population stood as still another problematic context
(Cf. Gonzalez, 2003, p. 5). As the country is forced to depend more
and more on labor export, and consequently value the ability
of Filipino job seekers to speak English, everyone conveniently
forgets that both the 1973 and the1987 constitutions only grant
temporary oicial status to English with an implicit hope that
Filipino (Filipino 1 and Filipino 2 in Figure 1) will one day take
over as the sole oicial language of the country.
Underpinning Motivations
Anthea Fraser Gupta’s article “Language Status Planning in the
ASEAN Countries” listed eight basic motivations that precede
decisions in language planning: [1] the government’s recognition
of the articulated desire of the people; [2] the cultivation of
national identity; [3] the establishment of a medium for inter-
ethnic group communication; [4] the maintenance of cultural
diferences between diferent ethnic groups; [5] the provision
of airmative support to some disadvantaged groups; [6] the
restriction of some minority groups; [7] the infusion of power to
the dominant group; and [8] the establishment of a medium for
international communication (1985, pp. 3-4). Table 2 shows the
diferent motivations that underpin the diferent languages in the
Philippines.
Implementation and Structural/Organizational Mechanisms
In this paper, implementation is conceptualized using Einar
Haugen’s idea of language planning as having four dimensions:

27
Silliman Journal
[1] selection, [2] codiication, [3] implementation, and [4]
elaboration (1987, p. 59). This paper’s idea of implementation
means that a given Philippine language, or cluster of languages,
had successfully passed through Haugen’s four dimensions of
language planning. Hence, Table 3 shows how these languages
fared through such dimensions.
table 3. The Languages in the Philippines and Haugen’s Phases of
Language Planning
Language Status 1 2 3 4
Filipino National and co-oicial language
English Co-oicial language
Regional Auxiliary oicial languages in
languages the regions
Other foreign Promoted and tolerated languages
languages
(Spanish,
Arabic, and
Mandarin)
1 = Selection 2 = Codiication 3 = Implementation 4 = Elaboration
table 2. Underpinning Motivations of the Languages in the Philippines
Language Status Underpinning
Motivation
Filipino National and co-oicial language 1 and 2 (in unity)
English Co-oicial language 1, 3, and 8
Regional Auxiliary oicial languages in 1, 2 (in diversity),
languages the regions 4, and 5
Other foreign Promoted and tolerated languages 2 (in diversity), 4, and 8
fanguages
(Spanish, Arabic
and Mandarin)

28
Filipino as national and oicial language encountered
problems in its selection and codiication processes. Its pre-
war versions (Tagalog-1 and Tagalog-2) had problems with
the selection dimension due to the perceived heavy handed
imposition of the Tagalog ethnic group, but it went on with a
rather successful codiication. Its 1973 version (Filipino-1) could
have addressed the problem of selection by promising a new
ethnically neutral/inclusive national language, but faltered in its
codiication, and miserably reverted (as Filipino-2) to the evolving
codiication that started in the pre-war period. These are the main
reasons that Filipino as national and oicial language could not
successfully push through the implementation and elaboration
dimensions of language planning. English, on the other hand,
when it was imposed by the Americans on the Filipinos, was
already a successfully codiied and elaborated language. Hence,
between a language that is still trying to legitimize its selection
and codiication dimensions while staggering in the dimension
of implementation, and another language that has already been
elaborated, most Filipinos would give their pragmatic support to
the later.
The regional languages had been successful in the selection
dimension, as there are no noticeable oppositions to the
government’s inclusivist action of making these languages the
oicial auxiliary languages of their respective regions and the
medium of instruction in the early years of primary education. But
in the actual reality, things may not be as neat as they appear. First,
the boundaries among ethno-linguistic groups do not coincide
with the political boundaries of the local governments. Second,
there are local governments that are saddled with too many
regional languages. These problems, although not articulated as
urgent maters, had already been felt in the codiication process
for the purpose of using these languages for instruction. Faced
with so many still uncodiied regional languages, the government
stealthily substituted its mother language education program
with a regional lingua franca education program, at least for the
time being. Thus, instead of codifying and immediately using all
of the over 150 regional languages for instruction, the government
started only with twelve languages and later on added seven
more. With this problem in codiication, it is but logical to assume
that the Philippine regional languages are still far from the
implementation dimension of language planning. With the status

29
Silliman Journal
of the regional languages as oicial auxiliary languages and as
media of instruction for the early years of primary education, even
if their codiication and implementation will be accomplished
someday, there is very litle chance for them to be elaborated.
Spanish, Arabic, and Mandarin—like English—are also well
codiied and elaborated languages. But unlike the case of English,
the plans for Spanish, Arabic and Mandarin are not as intensively
implemented and widely supported by Filipinos. As has been
shown (Table 1), how these other foreign languages are relatively
not signiicantly used in the domains of the Philippine public
sphere.
The structural and organization mechanisms that support
the Filipino language are the Department of Education, the
Commission for Higher Education and the Komisyon sa Wikang
Filipino (Commission on Filipino Language). These departments
andcommissionsaretoofew,toopreoccupiedwithotherconcerns,
and too weak to goad Filipino against the hegemony of English.
These are especially true in a context where the propagation of the
national language is not a priority of the government (Cf. Rappa
& Wee, 2006, p. 61). English, on the other hand, is structurally
and organizationally supported by practically all of the schools,
colleges, and universities, as well as by the other domains of the
Philippine public sphere (Table 1).
The regional languages are structurally and organizationally
supported by the Department of Education and nominally by the
Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino. The Department of Education is the
speciic government oice that is being looded with the already
mentioned codiication of regional languages for the supposedly
ongoing mother language education program. The Komisyon sa
Wikang Filipino is having diiculties implementing the national
language and could not be expected to give signiicant support
to the regional languages. In addition to these two government
oices, there are a handful of non-government organizations,
mostly groups of regional writers, that support speciic regional
languages. Examples of these organizations are LUDABI for
Cebuano, and GUMIL for Ilocano. Yet these organizations are too
few to represent all of the over 150 regional languages. Despite
their weak structural/organizational support, these regional
languages are adequately used by a number of domains in the
Philippine public sphere (Table 1).
Spanish is structurally and organizationally supported by

30
the Instituto de Cervantes and by the very few universities that
continue to ofer courses in Spanish for the students who are
majoring in history, international studies, foreign relations, and
the like. Arabic is structurally and organizationally supported by
the Islamic schools that are operating in Mindanao. Mandarin is
taught in Chinese primary and secondary schools found in urban
centers.
Implications on Nationalism and Multiculturalism
One of the motivations for the establishment of Filipino as
national language was the cultivation of uniied national identity
(Table 2). But since the perceived heavy handed imposition of the
Tagalog ethnic group resulted in resentment among those who do
not belong to this ethnic group, this language did not do much
in the strengthening of Filipino nationalism. Nationalism in the
Philippines was irst expressed anyway in Spanish, then in the
regional languages and then in English. Thus, there is no reason
why it cannot be cultivated further using English and the regional
languages.
Does the failure of Philippines to cultivate a uniied national
identity with its national language imply that such language
inadvertently supported multiculturalism? It does not follow,
because there is a diference between being multicultural and
multiculturalism. The irst refers to a state of cultural diversity,
while the second refers to an atitude of openness to such diversity.
There might be linguistic diversity in the Philippines, but it does
not follow that its government has that atitude of openness to
such diversity. Philippine multiculturalism cannot be deduced
from its failed mono-cultural atempt to cultivate a uniied
national identity through the Filipino national language. It should
be deduced instead in its mother language education program.
But considering that such program is still being run as a lingua
franca education program, and that such program is only good
for the early years of primary education, we cannot reasonably
expect a profound multiculturalism coming from it.
Implications on Human and Intellectual Capital
The Philippines has already achieved the status of being one of the
top labor exporting countries, but a closer look (Table 4), showing

31
Silliman Journal
how Filipino workers are distributed among foreign occupational
groups, reveals that only very few of them land in white collar
jobs (adapted from National Statistics Oice, 2013).
table 4. Distribution of Filipino Overseas Workers to the Occupational
Groups as of 2013
Occupational Groups Percentage of Classiication Percentage of
Workers Workers
Oicials of government
and special-interest
organizations, corporate
executives, managers,
managing proprietors,
and Supervisors
Professionals
Technicians and associate
professionals
Clerks
Service workers, and
shop and market
sales workers
Farmers, forestry workers
and ishermen
Trades and related
workers
Plant and machine
operators and assemblers
Laborers and unskilled
workers
This demonstrates that it is not the intellectual capital of the
Filipino worker that atracts foreign employer. Furthermore, the
country appears to have failed to maximize its rather impressive
educational infrastructure and culture (Table 5) that juxtaposes
3.5%
11.6%
7.6%
5.2%
16.7%
0.0%
12.9%
11.7%
30.8%
White collar
Blue collar
15.1%
84.9%

32
Silliman
Journal
July
to
December
2014
~
Volume
55
No.
2
thE
laNGUaGE
PoliCiEs
oF
thE
PhiliPPiNEs
aNd
thailaNd
table 5. Educational Infrastructure and Culture, Workplace, and Employment Context, and Global Innovation Index of the
ASEAN Countries
ASEAN Country Education Pillar Workforce & Employment Pillar Global Innovation Index
(from Human Capital Index 2013) (from Human Capital Index 2013)
Score World Regional Score World Regional Score World Regional
Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank
Brunei Darussalam No data No data No data No data No data No data 31.7 88 6
Cambodia –0.839 99 8 0.104 42 6 28.7 106 8
Indonesia 0.04 61 3 0.262 32 4 31.8 87 5
Laos –0.320 83 7 –0.097 59 8 No data No data No data
Malaysia 0.526 34 2 0.736 18 2 45.6 33 2
Myanmar No data No data No data No data No data No data 19.6 140 9
Philippines 0.011 65 4 0.164 38 5 29.9 100 7
Singapore 1.348 3 1 1.345 2 1 59.2 7 1
Thailand –0.242 79 6 0.482 27 3 39.3 48 3
Vietnam –0.176 73 5 –0.040 57 7 34.9 71 4

33
Silliman Journal
data from the Human Capital Index 2013 and the Global
Innovation Index 2014 (Adapted from World Economic Forum,
2013, pp. 12-13; & Duta, Lanvin & Wunsch-Vincent, 2014).
In terms of educational infrastructure and culture, the
Philippines ranks 4th in the ASEAN region. But in terms of
translating this standing to the context of the workplace and
employment, the country slides to the 5th rank in the same
region and in terms of translating its educational standing to
innovativeness, the country further slides to the 7th rank in the
same region. This incongruence could have been a result of an
ineiciency arising from the Philippine government and people’s
insistence on using English as the primary medium of instruction
that necessitates so much time for the learning and mastery of the
language without the guarantee that such time expended would
indeed result in the functional use of the same language. English
in the Philippines has become a botleneck in the education of
young Filipinos. Had the country shifted to using the national
language as the primary medium of instruction, the education
process would have been a lot more eicient. Although Filipino
may not be the mother tongue of many Filipinos, its grammatical
structure and a good portion of its vocabulary are analogous and
shared by the other Filipino Austronesian languages. The mother
language education program that was launched a few years ago
may improve Philippine education depending on its successful
implementation, which as this paper already mentioned is still a
huge struggle, and depending on whether this program would
systematically transition to multilingual education that is still
predominantly English or to a multilingual education that would
be predominantly Filipino.
Implications on Regional Integration and Globalization
Linguistically speaking, the Philippines, with its people’s facility
for the English language, the oicial language of the ASEAN and
a major lingua franca of international interaction, is more than
ready for regional integration and globalization. But globalization
is not just about communication; it is more so about human
capital and functional economies. If the Philippines strengthened
its communication facility at the expense of prioritizing its
human capital and economy, then the country should have
second thoughts about its readiness for regional integration and

34
globalization.
THE LANGUAGE POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF THAILAND
Again, to have a grip on the history of language planning in
Thailand, it is also advantageous to start with the following
chronological map that visually represents the period from
the establishment of the Chakri Dynasty and the Kingdom of
Ratanakosin in 1782 up to the present.
Figure 2. Chronological Map of Thai Language Planning
A Proile of the Thai Language Policies and Practices
National language. The de facto national language of Thailand
is Thai; its more than a century history of existence is characterized
by developmental continuity (Figure 2). Thai-1 refers to the Central
Thai language, which in 1918 was imposed by King Vajiravudh
(Rama VI) as a subject and medium of instruction to all private
schools, specially the Chinese schools, and which in 1921 was used
as the medium of instruction in Thailand’s compulsory education
program (Cf. Ratanapat, 1990, pp. 107-108; Tungasvadi, 2004, pp.
47-48). Thai-2 refers to the same language, which in 1940, through
a state convention, was made into one of the primary symbols of
Thai nationalism and an obligatory language to be learned by all
inhabitants of Thailand (Cf. Simpson & Thammasathien, 2007, p.
397). If one reckons the existence of the Thai national language

35
Silliman Journal
from Vajiravudh’s time, then it has been around for almost a
century; and if one reckons its existence from the state convention
of 1940, then it has been around for more than 70 years. What is
clear is that there is no disruption between Thai-1 and Thai-2.
Oficial language. Thai is the only oicial language of the
Kingdom of Thailand. Such status must be reckoned from the
reign of Vajiravudh. Therefore, this oicial language has been
around for almost a century.
International language. English is the foremost international
language of Thailand. Its presence in Thailand can be dated back
to the decision of King Nangklao (Rama III), who ruled from 1824
to 1851, to let his court be familiar with this language in order
to elude the threat of colonial domination. Nangklao had access
to the language through the American Baptist missionaries who
arrived in 1833, and the American Presbyterian missionaries who
arrived in 1840 (Cf. Methitham & Chamcharatsri, 2011, pp. 59-
60). This policy was supported and expanded by his successors,
King Mongkut (Rama IV), King Chulalongkorn (Rama V), and
Vajiravudh. The then Prince Chulalongkorn was one of the wards
of the British school teacher. The English language, therefore, has
almost one and a half centuries presence in Thailand. Although
Chinese, Indian, and Japanese are mentioned in the most recent
language policy of Thailand, only English has been substantially
supported so far by the Thai government.
Status of regional languages.According to Ethnologue, Thailand
has 73 living languages. Subtracting from this the Ban Khor Sign
Language, Chiangmai Sign Language, Chinese Mandarin, Thai
and Thai Sign Language, the country, therefore, has 68 regional
languages.Although these languages are heavily used in everyday
non-formal communication, they underwent a rather long history
of repression, as a consequence of the propagation of Central Thai
as the national and oicial language. The languages, other than
the Central Thai, that belong to the Thai family were considered
dialects and variants of the Central Thai. The rest of the languages
that do not belong to the Thai family were marginalized as
minority languages. Despite the dominance of the Central Thai,
there is generally no tangible resentment coming from the other
ethnic groups (Cf. Smalley, 1988, p. 246). It was only very recently

36
that the Kingdom of Thailand became open to the practice of
mother language education.
Status of other foreign languages. Aside from English, the
other foreign languages that are signiicant in Thailand are
Chinese Mandarin, Japanese, Pali, and Arabic. Chinese Mandarin
has been part of the curriculum of the Chinese schools since the
establishment of the Kingdom of Ratanakosin, and although it
experienced periods of repression it is presently the second most
popular foreign language in the country (Cf. Luangthongkum,
2007, p. 190). Japanese used to be the second most popular foreign
language before it was overshadowed by Chinese Mandarin (Cf.
Luangthongkum, 2007, p. 190). Thais who can speak Chinese
Mandarin and Japanese possess advantage in the job market.
Pali, a dead Indian language, and Arabic are used as religious
languages by Buddhists and Muslims, respectively, and are
taught in temples and mosques. Aside from these major foreign
languages, Thailand also has a number of languages that are
shared with its neighboring countries, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia,
and Malaysia. But for the purposes of this paper, these border
languages are treated as either regional or minority languages of
Thailand, instead of international languages.
Languages in the public sphere. With the presence of an
oicial language, 68 regional languages and a handful of foreign
languages, the dominant language in the Thai public sphere may
be determined following the scheme that was used in this paper
for the Philippines. Since the authors were not as familiar with
the linguistic landscape of Thailand as they are with that of the
Philippines, their discernment on the primary, secondary, tertiary
or quaternary dominance of the languages of Thailand was based
on the information culled from the literature on Thai languages
as well as on the kind guidance and assistance of a number of
Thai acquaintances who corresponded with them through emails:
Pat Niyomsilp, professor of law; Sarisa Srisathaporn, education
student; Nathawan Saensaeng, French student; Chayapol
Prayoonsin, information and communication engineering
student; Sirasith Prach Suchartlikitwongse, materials science
and engineering student; all from Chulalongkorn University;
Liu Phitchakan Chuangchai, teacher of Thai from Walen School
Chiang Rai; and Mew Kuenghakit from Harrow International

37
Silliman Journal
School.
table 6. Preferred Languages in the Thai Public Sphere
Domain Thai English Regional Other
Languages Foreign
Languages
National Gov’t Primary (1) Secondary (2) Not used (5) Not used (5)
Courts Primary (1) Not used (5) Not used (5) Not used (5)
Military Primary (1) Tertiary (3) Secondary (2) Not used (5)
Religion Primary (1) Quaternary (4) Tertiary (3) Secondary1
(2)
Education Primary (1) Tertiary (3) Secondary (2) Quaternary2
(4)
Entertainment Primary (1) Secondary (2) Tertiary (3) Not used (5)
Press/Literature Primary (1) Secondary (2) Tertiary (3) Not used (5)
Local Gov’t Primary (1) Tertiary (3) Secondary (2) Not used (5)
Businesses/Oices Primary (1) Secondary (2) Tertiary (3) Quaternary (4)
Factories Secondary (2) Tertiary (3) Primary (1) Not used (5)
Marketplaces/
Home-Based
Industries Secondary (2) Tertiary (3) Primary (1) Not used (5)
Average4
Primary Tertiary Tertiary Not used
(1.18) (2.91) (2.73) (4.55)
1
Pali and Arabic are used by Thai Buddhists and Muslims as religious languages.
2
Pali, Arabic, Mandarin, Japanese, French, German and Korean are taught in
some schools.
3
Mandarin and Japanese are used by some Thais in their job.
4
1.00 to 1.80=Primary; 1.81 to 2.60=Secondary; 2.61 to 3.40=Tertiary; 3.41 to
4.20=Quaternary; 4.21 to 5.00=Not Used.
Thai has primary, while the regional languages and English
have tertiary dominance in the Thai public sphere (Table 6). The
other foreign languages are relatively not signiicantly used.

38
Languageprograms.Bilingualism-a(Figure2)referstothearchaic
temple-based education that presumably used either the mother
tongues or some lingua francas together with Pali. Bilingualism-b
pertains to the elite court-based education that used Thai and
English starting from the decision of Nangklao to familiarize the
Thai royalty and aristocracy with the language. Monolingualism
denotes the secular and modern education implemented by
Chulalongkorn starting in 1884 (Cf. Sangnapaboworn, 2007,
p. 261). Away from the control of the Buddhist temples, this
educational system was presumably monolingual based on either
themothertonguesorsomelinguafrancas.Bilingualism-csigniies
the innovation made by Vajiravudh starting in 1921 to propagate
Thai as the oicial language of the Kingdom and English as its
international language. Bilingualism-d represents the educational
system starting in 1940 that propagated Thai as both the oicial
and national language of Thailand, and English as its international
language. Bilingualism-e refers to a trend starting in 1999 to use
English both as a subject mater and medium of instruction for
some courses (Cf. Baker, 2012, p. 2). Multilingualism pertains to the
trend established by the Kingdom’s new language policy in 2010
that airmed the value of the regional languages especially in the
context of mother language education (Cf. Fry, 2013). Aside from
these positive language programs that thrive in the educational
context, Thailand also initiated repressive programs both inside
and outside such context, such as the banning of the teaching
of Mandarin in Chinese schools, the limitation of publication of
foreign language newspapers, the banning of the use of scripts
other than the oicial and national script, and even the burning of
some non-Thai texts (Cf. Keyes, 2003, p. 192).
Socio-Historical and Political Contexts
Figure 2 might show that the presence of English as a foreign
language antedated the establishment of Thai as oicial language
by almost 90 years and as national language by more than 100
years, but such do not mean that English was able to entrench
itself deeper than Thai. English started as an international
language for only a very small number of Thai royalty and
aristocracy. English and Thai started to be imposed on the
wider population simultaneously in 1921, with Thai as both a

39
Silliman Journal
curricular subject and medium of instruction as well as medium
of oicial communication, while English was only a curricular
subject. Furthermore, it should be remembered that even before
English came into Thailand, the Thai language already had some
hundreds of years of history as the language of the court. Another
important factor that leads to the entrenchment of Thai was
the fact that the language planning initiated by Vajiravudh was
preceded by more than 130 years of stabilization of the Kingdom
of Ratanakosin and some decades of bureaucratic centralization
and modernization done by Chulalongkorn. In addition to this
well primed stage, Vajiravudh threw his full authority and
support for the propagation of Thai as oicial language.
The mild linguistic diversity of Thailand ofered another
auspicious context for the entrenchment of Thai. The Thai family
of languages was spoken by more than 90% of the population of
the Kingdom. By packaging the other Thai languages as dialects
and variations of Central Thai, the oicial and national language
became easier to accept by over 90% of the population. Since Thai
had the privilege of being the language of court, and therefore the
language of prestige and opportunity, and lingua franca as well,
the remaining less than 10% of the population speaking about 50
diferent non-Thai languages could ofer very litle resistance to
the imposition of Thai.
In the context of an absolute monarchical state, the issue
of selecting an oicial language, was not a mater that was to
be setled in a political debate. Thus, Vajiravudh selected Thai,
because it was his language, it was the language of his capital,
it was the courtly language of his kingdom as well as of its
predecessor, the Kingdom of Ayuthaya, and it was the lingua
franca of his people. There were no local rulers to debate against
his imposition of Thai, because decades before, Chulalongkorn
clipped their powers and replaced most of them with bureaucrats
who took orders from Bangkok. Most importantly, there was
no time for political debates, as Vajiravudh was consumed by a
sense of urgency in using Thai as a tool for nation building. First,
he inherited from Chulalongkorn the idea that the Thai nation
had to be built; otherwise, the western powers might parcel out
the Kingdom of Ratanakosin along the ethnic boundaries of its
admitedly diverse people, leaving the Chakri Dynasty with only
the territories occupied by the Thai ethnic groups (Cf. Keyes, 1997,
p. 207). Third, Vajiravudh felt threatened by the rise of nationalism

40
among the Chinese in Thailand, but knew that they can be swayed
to the side of the Thai nation if such nation emerges soon (Cf.
Simpson & Thammasathien, 2007, p. 395). With this urgency, the
establishment of Thai as oicial and national language happened
with less debates and protracted deliberations, but with more
action and implementation.
The robust economy of Thailand bolstered the Thais’ racial
prideandreinforcedtheirnationalismincludingtheircommitment
to their oicial and national language. Their stable population
does not push the Thais to seek employment abroad and force
them to embrace English more and more.
Underpinning Motivations
Following Gupta’s list of basic motivations that precede decisions
in language planning, table 7 shows the diferent interests that
underpin the various languages in Thailand:
table 7. Underpinning Motivations of the Languages in Thailand
Language Status Underpinning Motivation
Thai National and oicial 2 (in unity), 3, 4 (Thais from
language Burmese, Lao, Cambodians, and
Malaysians), and 6 (especially the
Thai-Chinese)
English Promoted international 8
language
Regional Mother tongues (national 1, 2 (in diversity), 4 (within
languages treasures) Thailand), and 5
Other foreign Other promoted 2 (in diversity), 4 (especially the
languages international languages Thai-Chinese), and 8
(Mandarin,
Japanese, French,
German, Korean,
Pali and Arabic)

41
Silliman Journal
Implementation and Structural/Organizational Mechanisms
Following this paper’s deinition of implementation as a given
language’s successful passage through Haugen’s four dimensions
of language planning, Table 8 shows how the diferent languages
of Thailand fared through such dimensions.
table 8. The Languages in Thailand and Haugen’s Phases of Language
Planning
Language Status 1 2 3 4
Thai National and co-oicial language
English Promoted international language
Regional Mother Tongues
languages (National Treasures)
Other foreign Other promoted international
languages languages
(Mandarin,
Japanese,
French,
German,
Korean, Pali,
and Arabic)
Thai did not encounter problems in its selection process
during the time of Vajiravudh. Its codiication process was even
done earlier during the time of Chulalongkorn (Cf. Renard, 2006,
p. 314). With the full support of Vajiravudh, in the context of a
state that was centralized and modernized by Chulalongkorn, in
a precarious climate of external and internal threats, the policy of
using Thai as oicial language was powerfully implemented. As
already mentioned, such initial status given to Thai was supported
and further developed by the succeeding governments. Thai is
constantly being elaborated by the Royal Institute of Thailand.
Hence, viewed through the dimensions of Haugen, Thai language
planning is a story of success. English, on the other hand, although
it is a fully codiied and elaborated language, was not successfully

42
implemented in Thailand. Nangklao’s idea was merely to limit
its use among some members of the Thai royalty and aristocracy.
Vajiravudh’s atempt at universalizing the use of English was
operationalized by merely ofering it as a curricular subject. Since
1999, Thailand has been trying to improve its facility with English
by using it more and more as a medium of instruction, at least for
some courses.
Although Thailand’s regional languages had just recently
emerged from almost 100 years of repression, their airmation
since 2010 as mother tongues and national treasures signal a
successfulselectiondimensioninthisbranchoflanguageplanning.
But with the same history of almost 100 years of repression and a
mother language education policy that is still four years old, these
regional languages are deinitely currently plagued by problems
of codiication. Thus, their implementation would also be logically
problematic, at least for the time being. With their status as media
of instruction for the early years of primary education, even if their
codiication and implementation will be accomplished soon, there
is very litle chance for them to be elaborated. Mandarin, Japanese,
French, German, Korean, Arabic, and Pali—like English—are
also well codiied, and, except Pali, are well elaborated as well. If
English is not successfully implemented in Thailand, these other
foreign languages are in an even worse situation. It has already
been shown that these other foreign languages are relatively not
signiicantly used in the domains of the Thai public sphere (Table
6).
The structural and organization mechanisms that support
Thai are the Royal Institute of Thailand that takes care of the
continuous standardization and elaboration of the languages
as well as its propagation at the level of the country’s top
scientists and scholars; the Ministry of Education and its
textbook printing office that take care of the propagation at the
level of the teachers, professors and the youth; the National
Identity Office that takes care of promoting national unity
and security based on the principle of “one language and one
culture;” the Ministry of the Interior that takes care of the
functional Thai proficiency of the local officials; and even the
Ministry of Defense that takes care that language issues do not
escalate into political issues (Cf. Luangthongkum, 2007, p. 181;
Rappa & Wee, 2006, pp. 110-111). English, on the other hand,
is structurally and organizationally supported by the Ministry

43
Silliman Journal
of Education, as well as by some of the domains of the Thai
public sphere (Table 6).
The regional languages are structurally and organizationally
supported by the Royal Institute of Thailand and the Ministry of
Education. However, it appears that the Royal Institute of Thailand
is still not prepared for the codiication of these languages. Its
current functions related to language are still very much tied to
the oicial and national Thai language “to compile dictionaries,
encyclopedias, terminologies in all ields of knowledge, and coin
new words” and “to establish criteria of Thai usage in order to
preserve and promote the Thai language, a national identity” (The
Royal Institute, 2007). The other foreign languages are structurally
and organizationally supported also by the Royal Institute of
Thailand and the Ministry of Education, the Chinese schools, and
by the major mosques and temples.
Implications on Nationalism and Multiculturalism
One of the motivations for the establishment of Thai as national
language was the cultivation of a uniied national identity (Table
7). Such desire for a uniied national identity was not nurtured for
the sake of a uniied national identity but rather for the sake of
saving the Kingdom of Ratanakosin from the external threat of
the French and British colonial powers as well as from the internal
threat of the Thai-Chinese.
Thailand’s nation building since the time of Chulalongkorn
andVajiravudhhadclearlybeenveeringtowardsmonoculturalism
and monolingualism. Such a long lasting project had been
inauspicious to multiculturalism. What is remarkable about
Thailand’s monolingual nation building was that the other Thai
ethnic groups generally accepted the national language, and
what they asked for from the central government was merely
the government’s tolerance and a litle space for their regional
languages (Cf. Keyes, 2003, p. 192). It is only lately that Thailand
began airming multiculturalism through its opening up to
the regional languages in its recent mother language education
program. But considering that this program is still four years old,
and that these regional languages will only be used in the early
years of primary education, we still have to wait and see what
kind of multiculturalism it will foster.

44
Implications on Human and Intellectual Capital
Thailand appears to have maximized its rather struggling
educational infrastructure and culture (Table 5) that juxtaposes
data from the Human Capital Index 2013 and the Global
Innovation Index 2014. In terms of educational infrastructure and
culture, Thailand ranks 6th in the ASEAN region. But in terms
of translating this standing to the context of the workplace and
employment, the country climbs to the 3rd rank in the same
region, and, in terms of translating its educational standing
to innovativeness, the country retains the 3rd rank in the same
region. This impressive incongruence could have been a result
of an eiciency arising from the Thai government’s insistence
on using Thai as the primary medium of instruction. Although
Central Thai may not be the mother tongue of many Thais, the
major regional languages of Thailand are related to it as part of
one linguistic family.
Figure 3. Chronological Maps of Philippine and Thai Language Planning

45
Silliman Journal
Implications on Regional Integration and Globalization
Thailand may not be very proicient with English, but it does
not mean that it is not ready for regional integration and
globalization. It has enough leaders and intellectuals who are
proicient with English and therefore can communicate regionally
and internationally. Furthermore, some Thais are very proicient
with Chinese Mandarin and with the handful of their boundary
languages such as Burmese, Lao, Cambodian, and Malay, which
are languages of some of the ASEAN countries. As already
mentioned, globalization is not just about communication, but
more so about human capital and functional economies, thus
Thailand’s impressive translation of its standing in educational
infrastructure and culture into economic and innovative
performance (Table 5) gives the country a considerable edge.
COMPARISON AND CONTRAST
On the Proiles of the Philippine and Thai Language Policies
and Practices
The Philippines and Thailand’s linguistic proiles are similar in
the sense that they both: [1] have a national indigenous language,
[2] use such national indigenous language as oicial language,
[3] have English as primary international language, [4] have
a number of regional languages, [5] are currently shifting to a
multilingual airmation for these regional languages, and [6]
have other international languages.
At a closer comparison, however, these similarities would
prove to be supericial in the sense that the Philippines and
Thailand’s linguistic proiles have more dissimilarities in their
details. First, Thailand’s national language is indeed used as the
only oicial language of the country, in contrast to the Philippines’
failure to use its national language and its having English as a co-
oicial language. Second, the Philippines’ proiciency in English is
much stronger than that of Thailand, because for over a hundred
years the Philippines has used English as a medium of instruction
and as an oicial/co-oicial language, while Thailand only uses
English as a subject to be studied and as an international language
for a very limited number of people. Third, the Philippines

46
has a more positive and tolerant atitude towards the regional
languages, in contrast to Thailand’s incidence of repressive and
aggressive monolingual policies. Fourth, Thailand’s other foreign
languages have actual pragmatic functions and enjoy some level
of support from the government, while the Philippines’ other
foreign languages are merely mentioned in some policies. Fifth,
the Philippines and Thailand have diferent ways of employing
their languages in the public sphere (Table 9).
table 9. Comparison on How the Philippines and Thailand Use their
Languages in the Public Sphere Based on Tables 1 and 6
Languages Philippines Thailand
National/Oicial Language Tertiary Primary
English Primary Tertiary
Regional Languages Secondary Tertiary
Other Foreign Languages Not signiicantly used Not signiicantly used
In the Philippine public sphere, English has primary
dominance, the regional languages have secondary dominance,
while the national and oicial language has only tertiary
dominance, and the other foreign languages are not signiicantly
used. In the Thai public sphere, on the other hand, it is the
national and oicial language that has primary dominance, while
the regional languages, together with English, only have tertiary
dominance, although the other foreign languages are also not
signiicantly used. Sixth, the diference between the Philippines
and Thailand’s language programs can be graphically seen in
Figure 3.
The Philippines left a dizzying trace of rambling, shifting
and disruptive language programs in comparison to Thailand’s
evolutionary and developmental trajectory. In addition to this,
Thailand had a slightly longer history of nationalistic language
planning than did the Philippines.
On the Socio-Historical and Political Contexts of Philippine
and Thai Language Planning
The socio-historical and political contexts of Philippine and
Thai language planning are similar in the sense that they both:

47
Silliman Journal
[1] have English as an international language that antedates the
establishment of their national/oicial language, [2] have to start
from a linguistically heterogeneous situation, and [3] exist under
the overarching presence of western powers.
At a closer comparison again, these similarities would prove
to be supericial in the sense that the socio-historical and political
contexts of Philippine and Thai language planning have more
dissimilarities in their details. First, although English antedated
Thai as a national/oicial language, Central Thai was already
used hundreds of years earlier as a courtly language and lingua
franca, in contrast to Tagalog/Filipino that did not have such
distinctions prior to its selection as national/oicial language.
Second, Philippines’ linguistic heterogeneity is much greater,
more than double speciically, compared to that of Thailand, and
such Philippine heterogeneity does not have an uncontestable
majority language. Third, Thailand was not colonized while the
Philippines had been colonized by both Spain and the United
States of America. Hence, language planning in the Philippines
happened when the country was still a colony, while language
planning in Thailand was done after more than a century of
political stabilization and centralization. Fourth, language
planning in Thailand had the ideological, organizational and
logistical support from the absolute monarch, in contrast to the
language planning in the Philippines that deteriorated into a
wrangling issue that cannot be resolved democratically and had
to be relegated to some obscure departments as a non-priority.
Fifth, language planning in Thailand had a sense of urgency
coming from the need to have a common language for intra-state
communication, from the external threat of western colonization,
and from the internal threat of the rising nationalism of the Thai-
Chinese. Philippine language planning never had such sense of
urgency, as the country’s intra-state communication was done in
English, the Filipinos did not see the Americans as external threats
but as benevolent allies, and the country did not feel at that time
signiicant internal threats coming from the Filipino-Chinese or
from the Filipino-Muslims. Sixth, Philippine language planning
is pressured to prioritize English by its sluggish economy and
rapid population growth so that Filipinos can more easily ind
jobs abroad. Thai economy, on the other hand, is more robust and
its population growth had already stabilized.

48
On the Underpinning Motivations of Philippine and Thai
Language Planning
The similarities and diferences between the underpinning
motivations of Philippine and Thai language planning can be seen
in Table 10.
table 10. Comparison on the Underpinning Motivations of Philippine and
Thai Language Planning Based on Tables 2 and 7
Language Underpinning Motivation
Philippines Thailand
National/Oicial Language 1 and 2 (in unity) 2 (in unity), 3, 4 (Thais
from Burmese, Lao,
Cambodians and
Malaysians), and 6
(esp. the Thai-Chinese)
English 1, 3, and 8 8
Regional Languages 1, 2 (in diversity), 4, 1, 2 (in diversity), 4
and 5 (within Thailand), and 5
Other Foreign Languages 2 (in diversity), 4 2 (in diversity), 4 (esp. the
and 8 Thai-Chinese), and 8
The underpinning motivations for promoting the regional languages
and other foreign languages in the Philippines and Thailand are almost
the same. As for the national/oicial language, Thailand has more
underpinning motivations than the Philippines. This could be one of the
reasons why Thai is deinitely more robust than Filipino. On the other
hand, as for English as a primary international language, the Philippines
has more underpinning motivations than Thailand. This could be one of
thereasonswhyFilipinosendedupbeingmoreproicientinEnglishthan
the Thais.
On the Implementation and Structural/Organizational
Mechanisms of Philippine and Thai Language Planning
The similarities and diferences between the implementations of

49
Silliman Journal
Philippine and Thai language planning can be seen in Table 11.
table 11. Comparison on the Movements of Philippine and Thai Language
Planning through Haugen’s Phases
Language Philippines Thailand
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
National/Oicial Language
English
Regional Languages
Other Foreign Languages
The implementation of the planning for regional languages
in the Philippines and Thailand are similar in the sense that they
are both stuck in the codiication phase, owing to the newness
of the two countries’ shift to mother language education. The
implementation of the planning for the other international
languages in the Philippines and Thailand are also similar
in the sense that they are both having problems in Haugen’s
implementation stage.
Philippines and Thailand difer in the implementation of
their national/oicial languages, in the sense that the Philippines
is stuck in Haugen’s implementation phase, while Thailand
is currently engaged in further elaborating Thai. Philippines
and Thailand also difer in the implementation of English as
international language, in the sense that Philippines is taking full
advantage of the ongoing elaborations of English that are being
done in the other parts of the world, while Thailand is stuck in
Haugen’s implementation phase.
As to the structural and organizational mechanisms for the
implementation of Philippine and Thai language planning, the
two countries are similar only for their sparse support given
to the regional languages. They are diferent in terms of the
national/oicial language; whereas Thailand has a number of
powerful departments and oices that plan, implement and
monitor the propagation and development of its national/

50
oicial language, Philippines only relied on its departments of
education, that appear more interested in English language, and
a commission that is relatively powerless and understafed. Thai
as national/oicial language is centrally supported by the Thai
government as a political mater as the Thais are convinced that
Thai is indispensable for the creation of a strong Thai identity
and consequently a strong Thai nation-state. On the other hand,
Filipino as national/oicial language is not centrally supported by
the Philippine government as the Filipino politicians understand
that Filipino is a sensitive and divisive political issue that if
unnecessarily touched could create imminent backlash on their
political careers. Secondly, Philippines and Thailand are diferent
in the way they support English as this international language is
a priority in the Philippine departments of education as well as
in majority of the domains in the Philippine public sphere, while
in Thailand, although this international language is also desired,
the Ministry of Education still prioritizes Thai and majority of the
domains in the Thai public sphere only allot tertiary atention to
such international language. Thirdly, Philippines and Thailand
slightly difer in their support of other foreign languages; the
Philippines is hardly concerned about these languages while
Thailand is giving them some level of government curricular
programming and inancial backing.
The Implications on Nationalism and Multiculturalism of
Philippine and Thai Language Policies and Practices
Filipino and Thai are diferent in their impact on the development
of their respective nationalism. Tagalog/Filipino deteriorated into
a divisive political mater and therefore could not contribute much
to the development of Philippine nationalism. Thai, on the other
hand, was successfully established as one of the key symbols of
Thai nationalism and one of the deining characteristics of Thai-
ness.
Although the Philippines and Thailand just recently shifted to
mother language education, signifying in the process their oicial
support of multilingualism and consequently of multiculturalism,
it would appear that the Philippines has a beter environment for
multiculturalism compared to Thailand. For a long period of time
the Philippines tolerated and recognized its regional languages
as auxiliary oicial languages. Thailand, on the other hand, has

51
Silliman Journal
a history of repressing its regional languages. As to the prospects
of mother language education, Thailand, however, has an edge
over the Philippines as the Philippines is burdened with so
many regional languages and is notorious for its insuiciently
funded programs and oices. Thailand’s Royal Institute has
a beter chance of successfully codifying its regional languages
than the Philippines’ Commission on Filipino Language.
Similarly, Thailand’s Ministry of Education has a beter chance of
successfully implementing the mother language education than
the Philippines’ Department of Education. Furthermore, given the
Philippines’ history of rambling, shifting and disruptive language
programs, even the mother language education program is
actually in a precarious situation of being superseded by other
future language programs. Thailand, on the other hand, has a
history of evolutionary and developmental language planning
that in some way guarantees the continued existence of its mother
language education program.
The Implications on Human and Intellectual Capital of
Philippine and Thai Language Policies and Practices
Comparing how the Philippines and Thailand translated their
educational infrastructure and culture into advantages in the
context of the workplace and employment as well as in the sphere
of innovation, it would appear that Thailand is faring much beter
compared to the Philippines (Table 12).
The ineiciency in the way the Philippines makes use of its
comparatively strong educational infrastructure and culture
could have been the result of its insistence on using the English
language as the primary medium of instruction. The country
may produce English-speaking graduates, but only very few of
them can actually use such language in higher levels of thinking
and discoursing. Other graduates without the adequate English
proiciency could not as well use the national and regional
languages in higher levels of thinking and discoursing because in
the Philippine public sphere, there is very litle space and support
given to higher level thinking and discoursing outside the English
language. Conversely, the eiciency in the way Thailand makes
use of its comparatively weaker educational infrastructure and
culture could have been the result of its insistence on using Thai
as the primary medium of instruction. The country may not

52
Silliman
Journal
July
to
December
2014
~
Volume
55
No.
2
thE
laNGUaGE
PoliCiEs
oF
thE
PhiliPPiNEs
aNd
thailaNd
table 12. Educational Infrastructure and Culture, Workplace and Employment Context, and Global Innovation Index of the
Philippines and Thailand
Country Education Pillar Workforce & Employment Pillar Global Innovation Index
(from Human Capital Index 2013) (from Human Capital Index 2013)
Score World Regional Score World Regional Score World Regional
Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank
Philippines 0.011 65 4 0.164 38 5 29.9 100 7
Thailand –0.242 79 6 0.482 27 3 39.3 48 3

53
Silliman Journal
produce many English-speaking graduates, but the majority of
its Thai-speaking graduates can actually use the Thai language
in higher levels of thinking and discoursing. This mass of human
capital that is capable of higher level thinking and discoursing
is what powers Thailand’s comparatively vibrant workplace and
employment and its strong drive for innovation.
The Implications on Regional Integration and Globalization
of Philippine and Thai Language Policies and Practices
In terms of English as the oicial language of the ASEAN and the
lingua franca of globalization, the Philippines deinitely has an
edge over Thailand. But Thailand has an edge over the Philippines
in terms of Chinese Mandarin, as a major language in the ASEAN
region and also a lingua franca of globalization. Furthermore,
Thailand has border languages that it shares with its neighboring
ASEAN countries. In terms of human capital and functional
economies, Thailand also has an edge over the Philippines.
Thailand’s weakness in English can be easily compensated by its
increasing number of leaders and intellectuals who are proicient
in such language. But the Philippines’ weakness in human capital
and economy is something that cannot be compensated by the
number of its English-speaking people.
CONCLUSION:
INSIGHTS AND LESSONS
What the Philippines Can Learn From Thailand
Thailand has more success than the Philippines in terms of
planning for the national language, the oicial language, and the
other international languages, thus the lessons that the Philippines
can glean from Thailand should come from these three areas of
language planning. Relecting on Thailand’s planning for national
language, the Philippines should realize that in a linguistically
heterogeneous context, the selection of a national language would
inevitably be a political process that would include irresolvable
issues from some aggrieved ethnic groups. The Philippines might
have faltered in this process, but it went on with the codiication
and half-hearted implementation processes. Philippines’ national

54
and local leaders should be able to see that at this stage it would
really be both pragmatic and strategic to put a closure to the never-
ending debates about the bungled selection process and just move
on with full support for the further codiication, implementation,
and elaboration of Filipino. Instead of not atending to or blocking
a more robust implementation of Filipino, the local leaders and
intellectuals should focus their energies in lobbying for a more
inclusive codiication/elaboration of Filipino by proposing the
adaptationofmorevocabulariesfromtheirregionallanguagesand
even the recognition of their idiosyncratic grammar as legitimate
variants of Filipino. The national leaders, on the other hand,
should learn from Thailand that planning for national language
should be backed by a strong political will and suicient inancial
and organizational support from the central government.
The Philippines should learn from Thailand that one way of
propagating the national language is to use it as oicial language.
With the Philippines’ two oicial languages, Filipino and English,
the national leaders should make it a point that Filipino should be
the more dominant oicial language, and that gradually English
should be divested of its oicial status as implied by the 1987
Constitution. The Philippines can continue to use English as an
international language even without investing it an oicial status,
just like what is being done in Thailand. The Philippines should
realize that it needs a language that can be shared by the majority
of its people and can be used for higher level communication
and discoursing. English was not able to address such need, but
Filipino has greater chances of addressing such need. Being an
Austronesian language, Filipino is deinitely easier to learn, use,
and master by the Filipinos who may not belong to the Tagalog
ethnic group. The Philippines should look at Thailand to eradicate
its deep-seated fear that without English, the Philippine economy
would spiral downward. The Philippines should, in fact, realize
that its insistence on holding on to English only created a mindset
of dependence on external economies for jobs and survival,
which at the botom line only further weakened the Philippine
economy. Thailand’s practice of delegating international relations
and commerce to its fewer number of Thais who are proicient
with English can be used as model for Filipinos. After all, what
is the use of widespread English proiciency if it is paid for very
dearly by the Philippine people’s inability to engage themselves
in higher levels of communication and discourse?

55
Silliman Journal
The Philippines should learn from Thailand that aside from
English there are other international languages that can be useful
in the ASEAN integration and globalization, and that the study
of these languages, therefore, should be given some degree of
government support. For example, the Filipino language’s ainity
with the Malay language, which is a national/oicial language of
three other ASEAN countries, should be maximized as a starting
point for Filipinos’ study and mastery of this Austronesian
language. Just as the background of some Chinese-Filipinos in
Chinese Mandarin should be further cultivated and expanded to
the other Filipinos.
What Thailand Can Learn From the Philippines
The Philippines has more success than Thailand in terms of
planning for English and the regional languages, hence the lessons
that Thailand can glean from the Philippines should come from
these two areas of language planning. As to the relative success
of the propagation of English in the Philippines, Thailand should
see its positive and negative sides. On the positive side, Thailand
may learn how the Philippines propagated the use of English by
making it the primary medium of instruction in education and
by allowing English to dominate most aspects of the Philippine
public sphere. On the negative side, such method of propagating
English may negatively result in an ineicient educational system
that fails to produce graduates who are able to translate their
educational capital into functional economic power and drive for
innovation. Furthermore, such method of propagating English
may negatively result to the erosion of Thai-ness that the country
is supposed to be jealously guarding. In other words, Thailand
should think twice about following the Philippine fascination and
obsession with the English language.
Thailand may glean some lessons from the Philippines’
openness and tolerance to the regional languages. The existence
and cultivation of the regional languages need not be seen as
contradictory to the project of nation building. Furthermore,
since the Philippines started embracing the system of mother
language education a litle slightly ahead of Thailand, Thailand
could actually monitor the progress of such educational program
in order to gather practical lessons for its own implementation of
its similar program.

56
Insights and Lessons for the ASEAN Countries and Beyond
Concerning the planning for national language, the ASEAN and
other countries that are grappling with the issues and challenges
of being multicultural and multilingual as well as those that
are gearing for regional integration/cooperation may gather the
following insights and lessons: that a national language can be
used as a tool for nation building; that national language planning
in a linguistically heterogeneous context can be a very diicult
task that needs a lot of political will, inancial support, and
organizational backing; that national language planning implies
some irresolvable issues coming from aggrieved ethnic groups;
and, that the stakeholders should be able to see the necessity and
urgency of such planning.
Concerning the planning for oicial language, the ASEAN
countries and the other countries may gather the following
insights and lessons: that it would be beneicial for a national
language to be truly used also as an oicial language; that it
should be continuously assessed if an inherited colonial language
still needs to be invested with an oicial status; and, that the use
of an indigenous oicial language that is related to the regional
languages will tend to have a positive impact on the development
of a country’s intellectual and human capital.
Concerning the planning for English as an international
language, the ASEAN and other countries may gather the
following insights and lessons: that there is a need for an
international language and going for English is a sound decision;
that it is not necessary, however, to use English as the medium of
intra-state communication; that it is also not necessary to invest
English with the status of oicial language; that it is not a wise
policy to increase proiciency in English to the detriment of the
national/oicial language as well as the regional languages; and
that it is more pragmatic to reserve proiciency in English to
the segments of society that truly need it, such as the leaders,
international businessmen, academics, graduate students, and
other individuals gearing for overseas employment.
Concerning the planning for regional languages, the ASEAN
and other countries may gather the following insights and lessons:
that there should be no contradiction between being open and
tolerant of these languages on one hand and pushing for nation

57
Silliman Journal
building on the other hand; that these languages can be accorded
an auxiliary oicial status; that the system of mother language
education is a good way of airming these regional languages;
that, however, we should not expect so much development
and cultivation of these languages from the system of mother
language education in the sense that such languages will only
be used in the early years of primary education; and, that the
development of these languages will largely depend on whether
local organizations and intellectuals will use and support such
languages in literature and journalism.
Concerning the planning for the other international languages,
the ASEAN and other countries may gather the following insights
and lessons: that aside from English, there are other international
languages that can also be useful for regional integration/
cooperation and globalization and that it would be beneicial
for governments to encourage and support their study, use, and
mastery.
REFERENCES
Almario, V. (2014). Madalas itanong hinggil sa Wikang Pambansa (Frequently asked
questions on the National Language). Manila: Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino.
Baker, W. (2012, May). English as a lingua franca in Thailand: Characterizations
and implications. Englishes in Practice, 1(1).
Demeterio, F.P.A. (2012, September). Sistematikong multilingguwalismo:
Lunsaran ng mas matatag na Wikang Pambansa. Malay, 24(2).
Duta, S., Lanvin, B., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (Eds.). (2014). The global innovation
index 2014: The human factor in innovation.
Fry, G. (2013, November 18). Thailand's new language policy helps enhance
cultural democracy. The Nation.
Gonzalez, A. (2003). Language planning in multilingual countries: The case of the
Philippines. SIL.
Gupta, A.(1985). Language status planning in the ASEAN countries. In D.
Bradley (Ed.), Papers in Southeast Asian linguistics (pp. 1-14). Sydney:
Australian National University.
Haberland, H. (2005). Domains and domain loss. In B. Preisler, A. Fabricius, H.
Haberland, S. Kjaerbeck & K. Risage (Eds.), The consequences of mobility:
Linguistic and sociocultural contact zones (pp. 227-237). Roskilde: Roskilde

58
University,
Haugen, E. (1987). Blessings of Babel: Bilingualism and language planning, problems
and pleasures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Keyes, C. (1997). Cultural diversity and national identity in Thailand.” In M.
Brown & S. Ganguly (Eds.), Government policies and ethnic relations in Asia and
the Paciic (pp. 197-232). Cambridge, Massachusets: Massachusets Institute
of Technology.
Keyes, C. (2003). The politics of language in Thailand and Laos. In M. Brown &
S. Ganguly (Eds.), Fighting words: Language policy and ethnic relations in Asia
(pp.177-210). Massachusets: Massachusets Institute of Technology.
Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino.(2014). KWF manwal sa masinop na pagsulat. Manila:
Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino.
Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino. (2014). Ortograpiyang pambansa. Manila: Komisyon
sa Wikang Filipino.
Luangthongkum, T. (2007). The positions of non-Thai languages in Thailand.”
In L.H. Guan, & L. Suryadinata (Eds.), Language, nation and development in
Southeast Asia (pp.181-194). Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Lewis, P., Simons, G. & Fennig, C. (Eds.). (2014). Philippines. In Ethnologue:
Languages of the world.
__________. (2014). Thailand. In Ethnologue: Languages of the world.
Methitham, P., & Chamcharatsri, P. B. (2011). Critiquing ELT in Thailand:
A relection from history to practice. In Naresuan University Journal of
Humanities, 8(2) (2011), 57-68.
National Statistics Oice. (2013). Table 1.4: Distribution of Overseas Filipino
Workers by Major Occupation Group, Sex and Area, 2013.
Rappa, A., & Wee, L.(2006). Language policy and modernity in Southeast Asia:
Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. New York: Springer.
Ratanapat, N. (1990). King Vajiravudh’s nationalism and its impact on political
development in Thailand (Doctoral dissertation). Northern Illinois
University, Illinois, U.S.A.
Renard, R. (2006). Creating the other requires deining Thainess against which
the other can exist: Early-twentieth century deinitions. Southeast Asian
Studies, 33(3), 295-320.
Sangnapaboworn, W. (2007). Chapter 7: The development of primary education
in Thailand and its present challenges: From quantity to quality through
efective management. In Y. Akio (Ed.), Universalization of primary education

Athlete Engagement A Qualitative Investigation Of The Filipino Athlete

Athlete Engagement A Qualitative Investigation Of The Filipino Athlete

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Athlete Engagement A Qualitative Investigation Of The Filipino Athlete

Similar to Athlete Engagement A Qualitative Investigation Of The Filipino Athlete (20)

More from Dustin Pytko

More from Dustin Pytko (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Athlete Engagement A Qualitative Investigation Of The Filipino Athlete